rogan wrote: Jim is of poor character. Persons of poor character, the ones who will not stop, will generally also be willing to lie, prevaricate, delay and avoid, and otherwise only ever own up to the most inconceivable but theoretically possible version of events that provides the best outcome for themselves.

Dealing with young people who often have done something that contravenes the rules, I am absolutely stunned and amazed how they will argue black is white and deny any responsibility, lying bare-faced, even when the evidence against them is blatantly clear..... even when I have seen the misdemeanour.

Lying to save your arse has become an Australian cultural value I'm afraid

ldrcycles wrote:But if I spent more time looking at the road than worry about 3kmh, I'd be a safer driver. Driving/riding safety is way bigger than a fraction over the already low limit.

But meh, I'll continue to swerve erratically under the limit because "I'm safe under the speed limit"

I would think that if you lack the situational awareness to know when you are exceeding the speed limit then you are probably missing a number of other things as well. If you are having trouble keeping below the speed limit and keeping a good lookout then you should slow down. Simple really.

ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!

That is good news. WRT the debate over was in the right I would think that would be clear from the video.

Oops... started reading the comments. I must be a masochist.

Honestly though, all this constant chatter about rego/road tax, rights to be on the road etc makes you think that people have NFI what they are talking about? How can these people be allowed to finish school without understanding such basic laws and principles? We need to have a massive and ongoing public awareness campaign to drive the point home to these people.

elStado wrote: How can these people be allowed to finish school without understanding such basic laws and principles?

Who said "they" actually finished school at all ?

Myself personally finished year 12, BUT played sport every chance I could, didn't take any interest in what was being taught & was thrust into the construction industry at age 17. The first thing you're taught from fellow construction workers is to drink until you vomit, buy a really fast ute & HATE cyclists. Oh & don't forget to smoke heaps & women belong in the kitchen.

ACT Police confirmed to ninemsn they have made contact with the motorist and are considering whether to press charges. c'mon fellas - slap him with a neg driving charge!!!!!

That is good news. WRT the debate over was in the right I would think that would be clear from the video.

Oops... started reading the comments. I must be a masochist.

Honestly though, all this constant chatter about rego/road tax, rights to be on the road etc makes you think that people have NFI what they are talking about? How can these people be allowed to finish school without understanding such basic laws and principles? We need to have a massive and ongoing public awareness campaign to drive the point home to these people.

othy wrote:Looks like someone from Jims has gone into damage control. Much different attitude to what was displayed on their facebook page:

Andrew Kelly21 minutes agoGood afternoon,It is with some disappointment to find this one-sided story.The headline, Cyclist Catches Hit & Run, suggests that the driver of the vehicle, a Jim’s Mowing franchisee, was aware that he made contact with the cyclist and failed to stop. This is in fact, not the case.Jim's Group has gone to great lengths to make contact with the cyclist.Unfortunately, the franchisee was totally unaware that he made any contact.Jim’s Group first became aware of the accident when it was posted on YouTube. Obviously, when made aware of the accident, Jim’s Group acted immediately. We located and spoke with the franchisee, who was unaware that the accident even occurred. We also made immediate contact with police and reported the accident to them. We believe we were the first to do so.Finally, we e-mailed the cyclist, offering our sincerist apologies and offered in writing to pay for any damage that the accident may have caused to the bicycle. We are yet to hear back from the cyclist, despite three separate e-mails being sent to him.We are hoping to obtain the footage of the accident to show to new franchisees in training, highlighting the challenges of towing a trailer and to ensure that this kind of accident does not occur again. We also want to utilise it internally to educate more of our 3000 Jim’s franchisees.As a group, we are deeply upset that the accident took place and we care for the wellbing of the cyclist. Fortunately, he appears to have escaped any injury.Kind regards, Jim Penman, Jim's Group Founder

Can't confirm is its legitimate, as its just in the comments section of the news

find_bruce wrote:Whilst the driver says that he did not know that he hit the cyclist, one alternative explanation is that he did not CARE if he hit the cyclist, nor indeed whether the cyclist lived or died.

another is that he realised that he had hit the cyclist, then quickly determined that his "best" option was to drive off and deny knowledge of hitting him if he got found out. this is pretty obviously at least a possibility, and Jim Penman's purported defense of his franchisee, asserting that he didn't know he'd hit the cyclist, if really posted by him, is self serving.

Oxford wrote:whilst I find the punishment lacking, at least punishment was meted out. I only hope that others do not think that they could possibly get away with similar actions without being accountable for it.

however given the evidence (video), it is arguably an easier prosecution for additional offences that do not need a measure of malice to be successful. offences in addition to the failure to give way such as driving without due care and attention and others that do not have a degree of intent attached would I assume be a good chance of being successful.

I agree with the sentiment & had drafted a rant about how the driver should have been charged with negligent driving. Then I checked the penalties.

In the ACT a failure to give way to a vehicle involving a left hand turn has a maximum court imposed fine of 20 penalty units ($2,200) , an infringement notice fine of $291 and 3 demerit points. Negligent driving has the same maximum court imposed fine & demerit points but for some peculiar reason the infringement notice fine is only $230.

The problem is that the fines for negligent driving in the ACT (and the NSW legislative scheme they have largely adopted) depend upon the outcome -

if a person dies (negligent driving occasioning death), you go to court & face a maximum fine of $22,000 and or 2 years in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months

a person is seriously injured (negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm) you go to court & face a maximum fine of $11,000 and or 1 year in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months

in any other case of negligent driving you get a slap on the wrist of $230 and 3 demerit points, unless the prosecutor decides to take you to court for a maximum fine of $2,200

In this case there appears to be just millimetres from the cyclist getting very serious injuries, but the driver only gets a slap on the wrist.

It reminds me very much of the Workcover prosecutions of the 90s and early naughties - near miss nothing much happens, fatality then they threw the book. It is only more recently they have understood that reducing the near misses reduces the number of fatalities.

So in short, keep the pressure on the cops to prosecute near misses & just maybe we might start seeing a reduction in serious injuries & fatalities.

Oxford wrote:whilst I find the punishment lacking, at least punishment was meted out. I only hope that others do not think that they could possibly get away with similar actions without being accountable for it.

however given the evidence (video), it is arguably an easier prosecution for additional offences that do not need a measure of malice to be successful. offences in addition to the failure to give way such as driving without due care and attention and others that do not have a degree of intent attached would I assume be a good chance of being successful.

I agree with the sentiment & had drafted a rant about how the driver should have been charged with negligent driving. Then I checked the penalties.

In the ACT a failure to give way to a vehicle involving a left hand turn has a maximum court imposed fine of 20 penalty units ($2,200) , an infringement notice fine of $291 and 3 demerit points. Negligent driving has the same maximum court imposed fine & demerit points but for some peculiar reason the infringement notice fine is only $230.

Negligence can involve incidents were there was no actual other person or vehicle present. Fail to giveway automatically implies the presence of another person or vehicle. Hence negligence has a lower penalty at the bottom end of the scale.

The problem is that the fines for negligent driving in the ACT (and the NSW legislative scheme they have largely adopted) depend upon the outcome -

if a person dies (negligent driving occasioning death), you go to court & face a maximum fine of $22,000 and or 2 years in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months

a person is seriously injured (negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm) you go to court & face a maximum fine of $11,000 and or 1 year in prison & disqualified from driving for at least 3 months

in any other case of negligent driving you get a slap on the wrist of $230 and 3 demerit points, unless the prosecutor decides to take you to court for a maximum fine of $2,200

In this case there appears to be just millimetres from the cyclist getting very serious injuries, but the driver only gets a slap on the wrist.

It reminds me very much of the Workcover prosecutions of the 90s and early naughties - near miss nothing much happens, fatality then they threw the book. It is only more recently they have understood that reducing the near misses reduces the number of fatalities.

So in short, keep the pressure on the cops to prosecute near misses & just maybe we might start seeing a reduction in serious injuries & fatalities.

I agree the world is slowly changing, in that in the future, most transport collisions may well be captured on digital video, and therefore many more close calls/poor behavior/at fault parties will be dealt with.

The other end IMO is to put a dirty great carrot and stick into the CTP system. As it stands, a driver can do $500,000 damage to a person (ie lifetime permanent disability support), and not pay anything for it, because its a feature of CTP that the driver is indemnified. IMO that should be changed to a means tested ratio, such that part of cost recovery comes from the at fault party. Insurers actuaries are perfectly experienced with the task of setting overall rates given that some drivers will take considerable effort to extract their contribution from.

The net effect would be to transfer some burden from people registering cars that never have collisions, and never injure anyone, to those that do. ie CTP is good, it just needs to be adjusted so as to not to indemnify the driver entirely out of their duty to make good in a civil situation, and not just throw that burden out over the entire driving public.

Consider that if I caused a permanent disability injury to a pedestrian with my bicycle, I'd almost certainly lose my house (asides from the fact that I don't ever want to injure someone just because I like transport), its certainly a useful motivator in terms of riding past pedestrians on sharepaths much more slowly.

Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.

Well, yes. That is what murder is - intentionally killing someone. Generally although many governments have been chipping away so the unintentional death can be treated as murder.

The trouble with lowering the bar like that is that someone who GENUINELY went out of their way to kill someone (to inherit anothers persons wealth, to avenge some insult or stake a claim on some gangland turf for example) would be no worse than an act of gross stupidity which is what things like Jims mowing incident fits very well.

Though I certainly find that "failing to give way" is an outright joke if that is what was the outcome. There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.

Unfortunately there really isn't much else. There is dangerous driving, but given the driver wasn't speeding that is unlikely to stick the way our approach to road justice opperates

If that had been a car rather than a cyclists there really wouldn't be much more demand for more punishment. And currently the notion that vulnerable road users should be protected on our roads isn't really in existence. Unless you are drunk or speeding you can get away with pretty any "accident" on our roads except if it results in death.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.